We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Could I sue for being mis-sold
Comments
-
They WOULD be fixing in now - hence if prices fall, they're quids in on what they would be if they took their money now. It's all a risk. Sell now, sell later, don't sell. It's all a risk, but surely they're not taking more risk than me? My risk is three times greater than theirs. I own 75% to their 25%. I'd say the risk is entirely mine, to be honest. This is a drop in the ocean to them - but it's my life.
So, they would be locked into a valuation that, if the market improves over the next five years (which is highly likely), the value of that interest diminishes. But you want them to take all of that risk, whilst you take none; how is that fair? If you were to take the deal offered by the estate agent, you will be at no risk whatsoever.
It doesn't mater how much this is worth to them, their total value is irrelevant here. If they allowed all their purchasers to do what you want to do, it wouldn't be a "drop in the ocean" anymore, would it?The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Cos if I don't get an offer I will have booted out perfectly good tenants who are currently paying the mortgage. Which, obviously, I'm worried about. To me, it seems like I currently have ALL the risk and the developers have none. Hardly seems fair.
The developers risk was all at the beginning when they invested in buying land and building houses which they HOPED they could sell.
Life is not fair but no-one forced you to buy.
You do need to stop feeling sorry for yourself and try to focus on the useful advice you get on here and then try to move forward with a strategy that has the possibility of getting you out of this mess.0 -
Cos if I don't get an offer I will have booted out perfectly good tenants who are currently paying the mortgage. Which, obviously, I'm worried about. To me, it seems like I currently have ALL the risk and the developers have none. Hardly seems fair.
So market it on the basis that the tenants will get two months notice if and when a sale is agreed.0 -
I go back to my point.
You have taken a decision to get pregnant (again) and you can't really market the property with tenants in it who are paying your mortgage. You will not be able to afford the mortgage whilst in maternity leave, by your own admission.
Had you gone down the financially responsible route of sorting out your property and financial affairs BEFORE you decided to do what you were put on this earth for, you wouldn't be in this mess, would you?
So with all of these facts, you now want to change the terms of contractual agreements that you signed to make it more comfortable for you.
You couldn't make it up.Everyone is entitled to my opinion!0 -
What tenancy are they in. Are they still in their assured shorthold tenancy period?Two months notice. If I'm gonna do it (give them notice), I'm gonna do it within the next week. That way, they'll be out before the Easter school hols giving me opportunity to go round and tart the place up (in my 7 month pregnant state) before putting it on the market
The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
So, they would be locked into a valuation that, if the market improves over the next five years (which is highly likely), the value of that interest diminishes. But you want them to take all of that risk, whilst you take none; how is that fair? If you were to take the deal offered by the estate agent, you will be at no risk whatsoever.
It doesn't mater how much this is worth to them, their total value is irrelevant here. If they allowed all their purchasers to do what you want to do, it wouldn't be a "drop in the ocean" anymore, would it?
How is none of the risk mine? I've still locked in at a selling price that is no longer current. Remember, I'm still getting 10% of MY money in five years, and will have already accepted 65% five years earlier. Like i said before, sell, don't sell, sell now, sell later, it's all a risk and most of it is mine.0 -
-
I'd thought that it would just be a case of them accepting a REASONABLE offer. But who's to say I will get one? I've already had a ridiculous offer of £120k which they (rightly) rejected, but who is to say that I will get an offer any higher?! They just sit tight on their 25%, with NO risk, while I have to pay all the costs. Where's fair in that?
Of course they are taking the risk. They are taking the risk that the market will drop further and they will lose more. If the valuation was one hundred and thirty-nine thousand pounds, why should they accept an offer of one hundred and twenty thousand pounds? No sensible person would.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Cos if I don't get an offer I will have booted out perfectly good tenants who are currently paying the mortgage. Which, obviously, I'm worried about. To me, it seems like I currently have ALL the risk and the developers have none. Hardly seems fair.
When you bought the place, why did you choose 75% only and not find a 100% place.
As you said yourself the Developers effectively gave you an interest free loan of 25% the value at that time.
Do you give the developer 25% of the rent? Of course not, so whats the developers 'reward' for this 25% ownership - well they got the sale at the time, and they may have been hoping for an increase in value, that wont happen, so thats another risk they took on.
You bought to be an owner occupier and decided to rent out later. The developers didnt get a say in this. If your tennants trashed the place and you went bankrupt then their 25% would be worth less, and thats their risk.
Unfortunately these schemes of part ownership were always a bad deal, you will have had all the maintenance to pay as well.
They shouldnt be expected to take on extra risk for the decisions you made, thats not fair.
Now lets say you owned the property 100% and wanted to sell. You would have the same dilema with the tenants. Can you not speak with them and come to some sort of agreement. Perhaps you can offer them a reduced rent and keep them in whilst you market the property, but on shorter terms (lets say you offered them 25% reduction in exchange for 1 month notice plus allow you to show people round). There are pitfalls to that approach but would at least help to reduce your expose to the mortgage.0 -
Because you have already made that decision. Your risk is only ten per cent of the property's current value, theirs is twenty-five. You made a similar excuse earlier, but when the boot is on the other foot, you are happy with it benefiting you.How is none of the risk mine? I've still locked in at a selling price that is no longer current. Remember, I'm still getting 10% of MY money in five years, and will have already accepted 65% five years earlier. Like i said before, sell, don't sell, sell now, sell later, it's all a risk and most of it is mine.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards